Spook_ie wrote: » Could you not see his car then, with the daylight reflecting of his windows, the one working brake light to show he was slowing down etc., you sure you should be on the road at all given your difficulties?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Well I hadn't seen your post tbh. Sorry to hear that. But these things happen and at least you're both still alive. I got car doored pretty badly once while cycling in the city centre and it shook me up for a while, now I'm paranoid af around parked cars. You must excuse my suspicions, for years and years cyclists get such a hard time, you should know this as a cyclist yourself. Given a hard time because they sometimes annoy motorists, it's as simple as that. The only reason they don't go nuts at pedestrians who are also an annoyance to drivers, is because everyone has to be a pedestrian whether they drive a car or not.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » But surely you would agree that hivis would make him more visible, from further away, particularly in a blue or black environment, such as nighttime?
FinnC wrote: » I got car doored myself once while out running, an aul biddy who was going into Mass just opened the door right as I was passing. Christ that hurt.
Hurrache wrote: » [Shrugs shoulders and sighs] Maybe this staggering myopia is a reason for a large number of road crashes.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Heh, fair point. Let me rephrase. Cyclists are immune to criticism from certain posters on this thread.
Pinch Flat wrote: » The comments section in the journal is always a good bell weather of how car dominated and car dependent we are. Someone boozed up driving and kills someone in a hit and run ? Hardly an eyebrow raised. Must look up the story about the new cycle lanes in the Phoenix park. I'd say the comments section went into melt down.
LeinsterDub wrote: » And ? Motorist are immune to criticism from certain others posters on this thread. Who cares about the unreachable fringes?
Stark wrote: » You keep missing the point don't you. He's just parroting the same drivel people come out with for not being able to see cyclists in the middle of the day if they're not wearing builders' vests.
I have the same opinion of people who claim road users who don't wear hi-viz are invisible regardless of lights or ambient lighting. They simply shouldn't have driving licences. Can't wrap the entire external world in hi-viz.
SeanW wrote: » According to whom? Everyone on this thread will criticise a motorist who genuinely behaves irresponsibly. But according to some * cough cough Thelonious Monk * what the cyclist did in Spook's video is no big deal. .
SeanW wrote: » In such a case the driver is a criminal. A "hit and run" driver no more represents motorists as a whole than the murderers in the Hutch-Kinihan feud represent everyone in Leinster.
SeanW wrote: » According to whom? Everyone on this thread will criticise a motorist who genuinely behaves irresponsibly.
SeanW wrote: » Did you see Spook's picture of the horses with and without hi-vis? I would have thought that would have ended the debate.
magicbastarder wrote: » i don't think that was the point he was making, more the point that there's no clickbait like a cycling story, and actual serious injuries and deaths on roads are unremarked on. at least in the journal comments anyway.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Though you were quite happy to identify cyclists as a group as 'lawbreaking scum' not so long ago, right?
No, not everyone - some people will dig deep to make excuses for 'lawbreaking scum' drivers who reckon speed limits don't apply to them.
So hi-vis works on everything, except cars, and except Spook when he's out walking - is that right?
SeanW wrote: » That's why seeing every thread about cyclists being hijacked with "But motorists break urban speed limits in the middle of nowhere" does tend to grate after a while.
Thargor wrote: » Then you should try "Motorists murder several people every week in this country" instead and see how you get on.
As a follow up you can ask yourself why exactly you and people like you get so excited about cyclists breaking laws
with effectively zero consequences
or harm when you have endless death and carnage on near daily basis
from 'lawbreaking scum' as you put it in cars engaging in the exact same lawbreaking, just using a rocket launcher instead of a cap gun as someone compared earlier.
Would you ever be tempted to spend days/weeks of your time complaining about motorists the way you do about cyclists on here considering the consequences are so infinitely more horrific? Why not out of interest? Genuinely curious about this to see if you can articulate why instead of ducking the question/calling it whataboutery...
SeanW wrote: » As someone who has had the misfortune of being a pedestrian in Ireland's main cities, yes Irish cyclists are - in the main - profligate lawbreakers. Totally unqualified to point the finger at others.
SeanW wrote: » We learn very quickly as a survival skill to "negotiate" with two-wheeled lawbreakers in daily life. That's the reason that hypocritical cyclists don't hurt or kill more people. We're watching for you.
SeanW wrote: » I've been a daily pedestrian in Ireland's major cities. We learn very quickly as a survival skill to "negotiate" with two-wheeled lawbreakers in daily life. That's the reason that hypocritical cyclists don't hurt or kill more people. We're watching for you.
Hurrache wrote: » And it's not a matter of opinion, the facts and figures prove you wrong.
Maybe stay indoors if you think walking around is a game of survival and you're in a permanent state of fear.
Thargor wrote: » Lol yeah I'm sure that must be a the reason its only motor vehicles that kill people, excellent logic and critical thinking there.
SeanW wrote: » Which "facts" are these? The facts that show that road fatalities in Ireland are among the lowest in the world, provably so, by every relative measure? Not a "state of permanent fear" but rather a need for a relaxed awareness. If you aren't watching out for two-wheeled lawbreakers, you WILL be involved in a nasty accident. The risk is tolerable, but it is there. Are you prepared to withdraw your filthy scurrilous lies about "murder?"
SeanW wrote: » Which "facts" are these?
Hurrache wrote: » The facts that show that people in cars are worse offenders for law breaking. It's that simple.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Couple in their 20s killed on the roads today after crashing into at truck. 3 x RIP comments on the Journal and it's been up for hours. If that had involved a cyclist there'd be 100s of comments now saying "Ah this is always going to happen the way they behave on the roads". Can someone please explain why no one cares about road deaths and are more concerned with cyclists on pavements?
Pinch Flat wrote: » Because we live in a car centric country. And victim blaming. People seem yo love this.
magicbastarder wrote: » i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that i reckon that if you were to tally every single instance of a law being broken in this country - whether detected or not - over the course of a day, that in pure numbers, motorists would account for *easily* over half of them. probably the vast majority; they're probably the easiest ones to get away with and with the most opportunities to do so.
TaurenDruid wrote: » No. It's definitely snooker players. Wait - cyclists! I mean they're on the roads, where all the crime takes place, according to you - but they have no number plates to identify themselves! Obvious when you think about it. FACT!